M900 vs M750

[motomartin11]

Ok ,so I'm sure there's been debate on this before but I've noticed as far as the early bikes are concerned most on here seem to go for the 900. I'm already feeling the pull myself. The PO of my bike did the same thing and I'm wondering why that is? Are they a better overall package ,more collectible , more modifiable or what?

[crust]

Bigger innit. :)


Otherwise sod all in it, really.

[Darren69]

An upgrade from 750 to 900 would be noticable in the mid range but there really isn't a lot in it. The 900 is a bit more relaxed than the 750 and it has an extra gear, but power wise not that much in it.

If you want to really upgrade then think about the 916/996 S4 or S4R or one of the later 4V engines, if you can live with the plumbing they are much more significant in terms of overall power and because they are detuned slightly you still have the flexible mid range of the 900.

[Mark64]

Dry clutch :biggrin:

[Blah blah]

Having had a 750 and a 900 and if I had to choose, I'd go with a 750 every time.

The 750 had a wet clutch (lighter), single front disk and had a better feel and balance, the 900 was far too serious whereas the 750 was so much more fun to ride.

(TBH my 750 was the first Ducati and I'd spent time sorting it, the 900 was a pain pretty much from start to finish so my views may be slightly skewed)

[Flip]

Depending on who was building it and or what parts came through on the Bologna parts trolley that day (and what year it was) specs can vary a bit with things like alloy Vs steel swing arm, rear wheel width (not sure about the front), six Vs five speed ‘box etc. as well as the obvious dry clutch and its associated rattle along with the 150cc’s difference.

I’m sure Utopia will add his comments/correct this in due course but generally I would say the 900 (carby at least) is a bit ‘grumpier’ at lower (read town) speeds and (depending on final gearing) a little more relaxed (thanks to its sixth gear) at motorway speeds than it’s 750cc little bro.

Some or all of that may or may not matter depending on how/where you ride most but swing arms and wheels are relatively easy mods (although correct 170 width rear tyres limit choices these days) to make should you wish but in my opinion, unless you’re hooked on going for a dry clutch, some deft suspension improvements will have a motorcycle that handles beautifully for a good rider to make the most of its motor.

[smiffyraf1]

never had a M900 but did have the carby 900ss (same engine) and a carb 750 monster at the same time and would always choose the 750 when off on a ride out.
As has been said i found the 900 a lot snatchier and the 750 was just a more forgiving but yet still rewarding engine. I definitely felt the 900 had more punch lower down. scarily so if care wasnt taken with the throttle. I never felt braking performance was any different from just having one disc but if only for aesthetics isnt a difficult conversion.
I do think the 900s will always command a higher premium. They were the 'original' and when released the 750 didnt sell all that well.
I do love the sound of a dry clutch though which is why when it came time for me to get another i went for the 1000ie. lots of rattly noises, plenty of power but delivered nice and smoothly.
id have the 750 and a 900 as well if i could though.

[slob]

Don’t forget the first M900s used an SS engine, later ones had the same heads as the 750 and feel a little less grunty with the smaller valves

[Darkness]

Indeed. After the first few years of production they went for smaller valves, then the M900 didn’t get the bigger valves again till they brought in the S model and injection.

[motomartin11]

Thank you all. I'm just reading the Monster Bible and can see the changes in specs as above year on year. I'm going to keep my 750 for the coming year. I'm not looking for great performance or handling -just a nice torquey V twin with character and rideability -which I think I already have. I was brought up with 70's Jap bikes so the early Monsters are the nearest development to the equivalent of the then far better handling Ducatis of that era.

[Mr Gazza]

Martin I think you will find that your M750 will fit your remit nicely. The M750 is definitely not inferior to the M900.

I had an early 750SS, followed by a (small valve) carb M900. I now run an M900Sie.
The 750 was a feisty little number, but probably doesn't compare directly to an M750 as I believe the SS engine is in a different state of tune and gearing. I found it to be a very fast motorcycle with an intoxicating intake roar that just made me spank it all the more. 0-60 in 4 seconds was fun, but I found it very uncomfortable at sub 20mph, more due to the clip-ons hurting my wrists than the engine characteristics. It was too naughty for me and I traded it for an M900. This was more relaxed and yet would still reach three figure speeds with the flick of a wrist. Everything was much more in control and there was less danger to my underpants! Not really due to the capacity change, but more the riding position and weight distribution. I don't recall any slow speed difficulty.
Regarding the brakes; I put an extra disc on the front of the SS and the difference was staggering.. A vast improvement! It was slippery with the fairing and offered no air braking and less engine braking than a 900 Monster, so benefited a lot from the extra disc. Ironically the M900 could probably manage with one? (But of course you wouldn't take one off!)

I now have a larger valve injected M900Sie. There is a marked increase in power over the carb 900, but yes it can be lumpy at the very low end of the rev range (sub 2000 rpm). That's not a problem to me, I like to feel it bucking and baying, reminding me that it's a big motorbike champing at the bit. On the open road she just flies effortlessly. (nearly 70mpg on a run even at very naughty speeds.)

Dacs has an M750ie and we often ride out together. He says he has to anticipate when I'm going to nail it and be ready, with the 750 needing a little more effort to keep up with 900s' grunt.. He never gets left behind mind.
The reverse is true when I follow Grumpy's 1200. I have to be ready for take off and I can't deny falling behind sometimes, but those 1200s' are awesome in the right hands!!

To end the tale, I have now got another 750SS, an injected one this time. I hope to build it as a naked upright bike to enjoy the virtues of that lovely 750 engine in comfort.

I hope you enjoy yours.. :thumbsup:

[Darren69]

The small valve 750 head was I believe fitted to the standard M900 around '97-'98 whereas the S version still had the big valve head at that time, as I'm sure you will find there are more details in the Monster bible, which I was going to suggest you read up on anyway.

I wouldn't say the 750 wet clutch was much lighter than the dry clutch, but is certainly more forgiving, especially in traffic but there are countless options to upgrade the rather poor standard one, with whatever you want, lighter and better quality billet parts to various slipper options and 48 tooth versions, all of which will be better than the standard one.

The earlier 900 motors did suffer from cylinder studs breaking, most of which will have been fixed or swapped with the upgraded ones by now, but it's worth checking. Someone on here had one let go recently.

The carby ones seem to be starting to fetch strong money now as they are becoming 'classic' but the later ie ones are better value for the same sort of cash. IE does do away with any carb icing issues and improves the general running and much easier dyno tuned these days now to overcome any fueling issues.

[motomartin11]

Well thanks again for your further thoughts.

I've owned many bikes over very many years and although I've not yet done many miles on my 750 Monster I found both the clutch and brakes acceptable. I used to own an Enfield Bullet with the most horrendous clutch so nothing can be as wrist achingly bad as that. I did try as SS quite a few years back but can't remember whether it was a 600 or 750 and even then (15 years maybe?) although it fairly flew was far too uncomfortable a riding position for me. I ended up getting a Guzzi V1100 Sport which was very heavy and the FI was a nightmare in town but turned out to be a great bike on the open road. I followed this up with a 1100 Griso 2 valve and a V7 so have some past experience of V twins-I've also had 620 Monster and an SV650.I'm also currently running an Enfield 650 Interceptor and a couple of 80's single cylinder Hondas-can that word be used on here?

So thanks again for all your thoughts and I'll keep fettling the M750 until the better weather Covid situation arrive.

[slob]

Unless I’m mistaken your 750 should feel a little easier to turn, not only due to les weight, as it sits on a 160 rear tyre rather than a lower profile 180

[motomartin11]

Unless I’m mistaken your 750 should feel a little easier to turn, not only due to les weight, as it sits on a 160 rear tyre rather than a lower profile 180

Well it feels a lot lighter than the Interceptor...........

[utopia]

I can't really comment on a comparison as I've never ridden a 900 but I can tell you that after 14yrs of 750 ownership I still don't hanker after a bigger engine.
Sometimes I think it lacks a little top end in fast company on really fast roads but tbh it has more than enough sustainable speed for a naked.
And as others have suggested, it doesn't get left behind on the sort of roads that most of us like to ride.
When I bought it I chose the 750 specifically for its supposedly good low speed manners and its long lived, low maintenance and perfectly adequate wet clutch. I only occasionally miss the classic, dry-clutch rattle.;)
Mine is one of the last of the carby models and came with twin front discs as std.
Its a lifetime keeper and as such it lends itself perfectly to a few personalising mods, the main ones being the riding position (flat bars and rearsets), a lighter clutch slave, a single can exhaust and most noticeably, a pair of carbon wheels (and believe me, there are few bikes that could have motivated me to spend that sort of cash on mods).
It does suffer from carb icing on a cold, damp day but I have a pair of flatslide carbs awaiting fitment which should cure that if rumour is to be believed.
She weighs in at just a tad over 160kg these days and is a delight to chuck about through the twisties (though the front forks remain overly harsh in the compression damping dept).
One of the delights of the 750 is that maintaining a decent pace is about more than just twisting the throttle on the straights. While it isn't underpowered (in my opinion), it doesn't have an excess of power and therefore its a very involving ride. Its quite fun to be the last in a group of riders and work at keeping up (though I should add that my riding skills are no more than average).
After 14yrs it still brings a smile to my face every time I ride it.
I first fell for Ducatis when they launched the v-twins in the early 70's.
Maybe that has something to do with my fondness for the 750 monster in particular, which I see as a direct descendant of those early, 750 engined bikes.
I'm also a big fan of design simplicity, which is perhaps why I have little affection for the 4 valve watercooled models.
Yep, the 750 fits the bill perfectly for me.
It has everything I need .. and nothing I don't.

ps. I tried hard to keep that brief.
I could have waxed lyrical for ages.

[motomartin11]

I can't really comment on a comparison as I've never ridden a 900 but I can tell you that after 14yrs of 750 ownership I still don't hanker after a bigger engine.
Sometimes I think it lacks a little top end in fast company on really fast roads but tbh it has more than enough sustainable speed for a naked.
And as others have suggested, it doesn't get left behind on the sort of roads that most of us like to ride.
When I bought it I chose the 750 specifically for its supposedly good low speed manners and its long lived, low maintenance and perfectly adequate wet clutch. I only occasionally miss the classic, dry-clutch rattle.;)
Mine is one of the last of the carby models and came with twin front discs as std.
Its a lifetime keeper and as such it lends itself perfectly to a few personalising mods, the main ones being the riding position (flat bars and rearsets), a lighter clutch slave, a single can exhaust and most noticeably, a pair of carbon wheels (and believe me, there are few bikes that could have motivated me to spend that sort of cash on mods).
It does suffer from carb icing on a cold, damp day but I have a pair of flatslide carbs awaiting fitment which should cure that if rumour is to be believed.
She weighs in at just a tad over 160kg these days and is a delight to chuck about through the twisties (though the front forks remain overly harsh in the compression damping dept).
One of the delights of the 750 is that maintaining a decent pace is about more than just twisting the throttle on the straights. While it isn't underpowered (in my opinion), it doesn't have an excess of power and therefore its a very involving ride. Its quite fun to be the last in a group of riders and work at keeping up (though I should add that my riding skills are no more than average).
After 14yrs it still brings a smile to my face every time I ride it.
I first fell for Ducatis when they launched the v-twins in the early 70's.
Maybe that has something to do with my fondness for the 750 monster in particular, which I see as a direct descendant of those early, 750 engined bikes.
I'm also a big fan of design simplicity, which is perhaps why I have little affection for the 4 valve watercooled models.
Yep, the 750 fits the bill perfectly for me.
It has everything I need .. and nothing I don't.

ps. I tried hard to keep that brief.
I could have waxed lyrical for ages.

Well you can't beat passion can you. My respect for Ducatis started in the 70's too when I got outbraked by an early (round case?) SS750 on a Jap bike and had to go straight on before a bend down a track to a farm!

I too like the relative simplicity of the early carbed Monsters. Don't think I have ever kept one bike as long as 14 years!